Jump to content

Talk:Cambridge Analytica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Closure

[edit]

Has the company closed down effective of today's statement, or are they simply stating their intention to close? It seems a bit unclear at this point. Maybe we need to still refer to the company in the present until we're certain they have closed. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, as i understand from the press release (https://ca-commercial.com/news/cambridge-analytica-and-scl-elections-commence-insolvency-proceedings-and-release-results-3) they have ceased operations with immediate effect, I therefor believe it is appropriate to refer to CA in past tense Hybirdd (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The press release issued today says the company "is immediately ceasing all operations." I'd keep it in the present tense for at least today. At some point soon the independent sources will start talking about the company in the past tense, and then we should too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible to do that, although it's been changed again since my previous post, so I won't bother to revert it. I must admit I'm not sure if a company ceases to exist when it announces its closure with immediate effect, or when all the relevant paperwork has been filed to wind it up. This is Paul (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is when the paperwork has been filled --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legally speaking a company still exists after the dissolution paperwork is filed, even if operations have shut down. There are assets to be sold and creditors to pay. It can take some time. However I'd ignore the legal technicalities and focus on what the reliable independent sources say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can presume it's just changed name (and the register isn't a great source). Cambridge Analytica's IP belongs to the administrator. BBC article on this Secretlondon (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Facebook (Meta) chooses to settle a class-action lawsuit against Cambridge Analytica, should we cite it as part of the 'Closure' section or aftermath? Or should it be included in the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal wikipedia? DrPronoun (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~ DrPronoun (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages need to be merged

[edit]

I don't know how to do this, but this talk page needs to be merged with Talk:Emerdata. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should be merged once there's consensus to do so. FallingGravity 15:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akamai Content Management/ Amdocs

[edit]

Article needs mention of the subsystem from which the data was "gleaned" (of the so-called "Facebook" data); A desktop user`s data would have become available in most (national) jurisdictions by way of Akamai, but userdata from a mobile-telephone would have been logged by Amdocs, if the correlation exists within that jurisdiction (servers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.166.182 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any reliable sources for this information? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data Propria

[edit]

X1\, the significance of the new information you added about Data Propria is unclear. From what I can tell from the sources you cited, (at least) a handful of CA's employees moved on to start DP, which is doing similar work; but we have other sources calling Emerdata CA's successor firm. Do you have any thoughts on how we can clear this up? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"another successor" ? X1\ (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense to me. I believe a company can generally only have one successor. What sourcing do we have indicating that DP is CA's successor? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: Why are you hung-up on only one successor? It was Cambridge Analytica & SCL Group, now its DP & E. X1\ (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hung up on it. It's just that it's confusing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of impact

[edit]

This reads as a section designed to obscure. The statements "Political Scientists ...." What, all of them? Two of those referenced are journalists. What is a political scientist? Can anyone be quoted as in that category? Is a politician a political scientist? See the Political Science page in Wikipedia and the notice in the lead. This is all from a particular perspective and not from a neutral POV,Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-CA staffers working with Republican campaigns

[edit]

We should note that former CA workers are working on 2018 Republican mid-term efforts and President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election effort.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

add California's investigation?

[edit]

From Portal:Current events/2019 November 6:

X1\ (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Cambridge Analytica

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cambridge Analytica's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal section

[edit]

I have placed a "summarize section" tag on the Scandal section, which is too long; there is already a separate article about the scandal.. Gershonmk 14:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse The page Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal exists so the Scandal section here IMO should just be a short summary and a link to that, as this is a lot of redundancy. I'd like to replace the tag, with your consensus. Gershonmk (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therapy For Participants in Psychological Warfare

[edit]

How are people recovering from these experiences? If you read some of the documents, it becomes clear that people were pointedly driven to even murder others for reasons that were simply the stories and experiences they were manipulated with. Is anybody offering guidance for victims of things that extreme? Do any readers have advice of places to go, for kinda deprogramming and healing, or can relate what has worked for them? Xloem (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

Bannon claimed to have named the company "Cambridge Analytica" in a video clip aired in the Netflix documentary The Great Hack (2019). Is this true? Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"David Carroll (academic)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect David Carroll (academic) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § David Carroll (academic) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambridge_Analytica&oldid=1253853708"